Libellés

lundi 26 octobre 2015

56- The bluff conspiracy

THE BLUFF CONSPIRACY

I am open questioning for quite some time about the real reasons of
virulent attacks against agriculture in recent years. I try to understand where
does this relentlessness totally unjustified, and generally no medical or
scientific basis worthy of the name.

For, whatever some people say, the overall quality of food has improved
enormously in recent decades.

One quality criterion declined so almost unanimously recognized, the
taste. Nevertheless, in recent years, thanks to the variety selection, we
observe the arrival on the shelves of modern varieties to always better taste,
such as beef heart or Crimea black tomatoes.

You’ll tell me, why modern varieties? Old varieties are therefore
worthless? Yes and no. I'll probably devote an entire article, because I think
it's worth it. But to be brief today, I will only say that modern varieties
respond to concerns that consumers sometimes don't grasp, such as productivity,
extending the period of production, handling strength, conservation ability,
ability to reduce food waste at all levels of the chain, from the fields to
consumption, adaptation to a wide variety of climates, resistance to certain
diseases or certain parasites, etc. It should also be noted that the marketing
system for food has dramatically changed in the last 40 years, with domination,
ever increasing, of mass distribution. The requirements of this type of
marketing has forced growers to adjust to not disappear, to standards that had
not, until there is very little time, the eating quality as a priority.

Another public concern is pesticide
residues. Actually this problem has existed since the first copper sprayings.
Except that at that time nobody was interested in it, because of the ignorance
of risk, and there was no means to control. Yet the products were infinitely
more dangerous, and regulations almost non-existent. But today, we are able to
measure, so a lot of residues appear in extremely low levels and without risk,
but are detected. It's not that there is more residue than before, quite the
contrary, but we are able to measure ever lower rates, so we detect residues we
were unable to detect there are few, while they were probably present.

The rest is nothing but good.
Diversity, elongated periods of production and consumption, improvement of
quality, improvement of cooling circuits, improvement of production methods,
hygiene, improvement of productivity, reduction of environmental impact,
recycling, social integration, everything has been done to that agricultural
production is clearly better in every way.

Another finding clearly
demonstrates all these advances: the reduction of hunger in the world. We are
far from the intended objectives? Yes and no, because at the same time that
hunger is declining, the world population increases, so the percentage of
people without access to adequate food goes down much faster.

Looking at the above two curves,
from the FAO figures, we see that since the 90s, hunger in developing countries
has fallen from 1 billion to 800 million people affected. If these figures are
taken in percentage of the total population, hunger has fallen from 23.3% to
12.9%, that represents a reduction of 45%. That's good, but obviously it
remains insufficient. It is difficult to accept that one person in nine,
globally, can suffer from hunger in the XXIst century.

To this, must be added that diet
plays a major role in the increase in life expectancy, the significant
lengthening of life expectancy in good health, better aging conditions. Its
role is associated with access to safe water, hygiene and access to medicine.

Yet the image of the food quality
is declining, and the image of farmers with it.

One is entitled to ask serious
questions. What do we owe such disenchantment, such criticisms, even a frontal
rejection in certain cases? Why is the public so inclined to believe the
sensational statements and unwarranted of some manipulators, rather than the
more numerous and serious scientific studies, and the simple observation of the
obvious facts?

Daniel Sauvaitre, president of the
ANPP, (French National Apples Pears Association) and President of WAPA, World
Apple and Pear Association, explains how Greenpeace, sued by the ANPP following
the publication of a report whose title is unjustified but very provocative
"poisoned apples", did prohibit his participation in an international
symposium shortly organized in Brussels "Feeding Europe by Reducing
pesticide dependency". It is strong, when you think that precisely the
apple is the fruit accused of being the bearer of pesticide residues. It would
have been appropriate that the current main representative of this sector is
able to express himself.

It
seems clear that Greenpeace, not very sure of its own speech, fears an argued
presentation of the profession that it doesn't stop attacking, in an international
forum whose repercussions will necessarily be important.
The public demonstration of the lie that it organizes and mounts, could make it
lose credibility.

Yet, credibility = funding and power.

Greenpeace
nevertheless officially great defender of freedom of expression, reveals its
darker side, the frontal rejection of what is opposed to its ideas, everything
that could make it lose power, ie the profound rejection of freedom of
expression, for reasons hardly mentionable to its usual supports.

In fact, unwittingly, Greenpeace
demonstrates, with the key figures, that the European apple is safer than ever.
No luck, the ecologist organisation just wanted to show the opposite!!!

So
we wonder. Why is Europe the favourite target, particularly France and the
Anglo-Saxon countries? If Europe has the highest rules in the world, and if the
Anglo-Saxon countries and France, in Europe, are the countries where European
rules are more controlled, the better enforced, and even hardened.

The
reason exists, and is entirely political, and social. It's because this is
where the public is most sensitive to nonsenses said, repeated and kept
repeating by manipulators. The more the thread is big, the more we believe in
it.

This
is also where awareness of environmental problems has been the most intense,
and that's where the public has responded better to this awareness. This is
also where the critics against the institutions are the most common. This is
also where the industrial revolution and wars have done the most damage,
especially because of the relatively small geographical area compared to the
population. So the field is well prepared, fertile. The facts are established,
so it is easy to launch a voluntary drift.

We live in a strange and explosive
mixture of gullibility, paranoia, mental sadomasochism, sensationalism, taste
of criticism, urge to go against the institutions, ignorance, fear of
everything and saturation of unverifiable information. And at the head of it
all, a spineless, weak and corrupt political class, which has only one fear,
the reaction of its electorate. Whatever the decision, provided that the polls
remain positive.

We
have already known that, in the history of humanity, in other forms, different
only by the available technology in every era. This is how the great
civilizations that have disappeared in history as the Roman Empire or the
Ottoman Empire, for example.

We
call it decadence.

The
decline of the European Empire?

The
best part about it, is that if the manipulators get their way in Europe, the
rest of the world will follow sooner or later. This is one of the major export
markets worldwide. If Europe toughens rules, the world will have to do the same
to continue to export its products there. Double benefit.

And
I realized then that I had to this article in Spanish.

You will understand. The article
provides interesting quotes, between which I selected the 7 concerning my
subject, I have chosen to classify into two groups. Other citations are about energy.

1- Communication

“In
searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution,
the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit
the bill”. (Club of Rome).

The Club of Rome is a group of thought, created in 1968, the forerunner
of the ideas of ecological footprint and sustainable development, and initiator
of political ecology.

“We
need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination…So we
have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make
little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest”. (Stephen Schneider, Stanford
Professor of Climatology, author of many IPCC reports).

“We
are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major
crisis…” (David Rockefeller, a member of management of the Club of Rome.)

“It
doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true”.
(Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace).

You
get the idea? I think I already see clearer. It’s sometimes hard to feel
manipulated.

We
launch all-out attacks on topics likely to scare, to manipulate public opinion,
and lead people to go only to the ideas we want to impose. And the truth does
not matter, only the result counts.

Daniel
Sauvaitre turned into a knight defender of the apple. There is plenty to do.
Fortunately, it is supported by the entire profession, but it is hard to fight
against rumours, especially if they are orchestrated by groups as powerful as
Greenpeace.

Agriculture became a prime target
because its actors are fragile, its products are absolute necessities and of
daily consumption, and its activity acts directly on the environment.
Everything in a single target.

2- The place of Man.

Then
comes a point that I had difficulty understanding. Why such virulence when the
evidences of progress are everywhere? Hunger is declining everywhere. This is
not by chance. This is largely due to agricultural progress. The evidence is
there. Yet environmental organizations reject much of the past progress, only
pointing the defects, and block future progress.

Let
us see some interesting quotes.

“My
three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million
worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s
full complement of species, returning throughout the world”. (Dave Foreman,
founder of Earth First!)

Earth First!
is a radical environmentalist movement whose methods and direct actions were
school among current movements.

"The Earth has cancer and the
cancer is Man." (Club of Rome)

“The extinction of the human
species may not only be inevitable but a good thing”. (Christopher Manes, Earth
First!)

Edifying,
right?

It
is obvious that convinced environmentalists, and ecology supporters don't all
think so radical. But when you see the amount of lies that circulate on food
and agriculture, it seems obvious that these extremist thoughts have managed to
infiltrate all environmental organizations and supporters, more or less deeply.

If
you doubt this, just look at what is being published on your own activity. Has
it ever happened to you, reading an article or seeing a show that talked about
your specialty, to see an obvious lie or serious omission? I'm sure though. It
occurs daily and about everything. But of course, we only detect the lie of
what we know.

And
I'm not alone in thinking that the extremist environmentalism has little to
envy the most violent political or religious extremism.

So obviously, you could think that
it's intox to, a kind of counterattack.

But
to verify that this is not the case, you should just watch the video of Patrick
Moore, cofounder of Greenpeace, when he explains why he left the organization
(in English).

He
explains that two of the points that have profoundly shocked him until to give
up, are on the one hand the brutal refusal, and without any scientific basis,
of chemicals in general and more particularly the chlorination of drinking
water, and also the Greenpeace senseless crusade against golden rice,
responsible to date, of 8 million deaths, especially children.

We
feel concerned about Daesh, we help refugees from the Middle East, and we are
right to do so. But why don't we do anything when Greenpeace decides to let die
millions of people? We don't only do nothing, but we applaud and generously
fund the greatest genocide of the XXIst century.

And the public, I mean you and me,
get this avalanche of lies or rigged truths, generally without the ability to
distinguish the truth from the lie. And inevitably we believe it.

By
the way, remember that these methods are also those used by cults and
dictatorships.

And
since we are in quotes, here are two, quite interesting, especially when we
know who said them: